Answer me this! Is it right to accuse someone without knowing it for yourself ? Is it right to accuse someone?

Question

So! why did so many people accuse Michael Jackson, and yet did not find any D.N.A proof to prove his guilt? And why did they lie on him many times, without any solid proof, was it racially driven, or was it driven by the amount of money he had. One thing I disagree on his that he held the baby above the rim of the hotel balcomy. But! nothing else makes sense so tell me what is the truth. Can we look on people now and tell what they are thinking just by looking. Is everyone a criminal who dresses like one, and if so how come Bernie Maudaff did not dress like one yet he robbed all those people.

Eisbär · Accepted Answer

I don't know. I wasn't there. I wasn't the plaintiff. They could have been driven by money, because he was very wealthy, and they wanted to take advantage. Maybe he really did do something. He did have a lot of strange behaviors. I don't think it was driven by race, but it possibly could have been. I don't know because I am not any of the plaintiffs and I cannot speak for them. If they had evidence, and it might have been the word of the supposed victims, then it is not just an accusation. You can accuse people of things all you want but unless it is backed up by some merit, it will get dismissed. Merit could have been the word of the plaintiff of what they claimed he did to them.

And Bernie Madoff's situation is completely different because it is a completely different kind of case. It is easy to prove financial crimes when there is documentation and numbers that can be crunched to discover illegal activity - especially because it leaves a long paper trail that is hard to make go away. But when it is a sex-related crime, it is sometimes very difficult to prove because there can be very little physical evidence if any. And the more time that goes by, the less the chance of evidence still being around. So most sex-related crimes are based on the word of the victim and however credible their testimony is. Testimony is evidence, it is just not empirical evidence and that's why we have juries to help decide who is more credible.

The Arbiter of common sense · Answer

The people who accused MJ were his (alleged( VICTIMS.  THEY went to the police, they took him to court.  Both times it happened, he bought them off.

Yes, people should never call someone guilty until they are proven so, but MJ's own words made it very hard to believe his story.  30 something men do not sleep naked with small boys, and he admitted to that, claiming it was 'innocent'.  When he makes admissions like that in public interviews, the public is entitled to draw an opinion from that.

WRG · Answer

MJ was a freak. His father made him that way. He liked to spend the night with little boys. But the courts of LA (the same courts that found OJ not guilty) decided he was not guilty but if he was innocent then why did he pay out so much to the families of the children?

But he is dead now so it really doesn't matter.

Trending News

Answer me this! Is it right to accuse someone without knowing it for yourself ? Is it right to accuse someone?

3 Answers